"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Abortion, 12 Boys in a Cave, and a Profound Riddle

This week's announcement that Brett Kavanaugh has been selected as Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's replacement has many expressing fear and anger that Roe v. Wade might be overturned and that abortion in America will be outlawed.

It's confusing to me how many Americans can feel such happiness over boys being dramatically rescued from death in Thailand, while at the same time express such anger over the possibility of Americans being unable to bring intentional death to babies.

I may be the only person who thinks along these lines, but I'd like to point out the similarities between the boys in Thailand and babies in American mothers' wombs.

Both babies and the boys are alive.

Both babies and the boys are in a dark place.

Both babies and the boys are surrounded by water.

Both babies and the boys are in need of oxygen from others.

Both babies and the boys are in need of nourishment from others.

Both babies and the boys are completely dependent on other people.

Both babies and the boys will survive with preparation and careful removal.

Both babies and the boys have people around the world who are willing to help.

Those who know me recognize there's not a judgmental bone in my body. I listen to people. I can change my mind when sound, logical reasoning convinces me of my faulty thinking.

I'm listening.

I'm looking for an answer to the riddle.

I have friends who've had abortions. I've spoken with them about their decisions. Typically, an abortion seems to be a way out of the consequences of poor choices made in life.

But during mitigating circumstances, sorrow is the emotion of all involved. Sorrow is never the endpoint. God has a way of turning sorrow into joy.

But that's another post.

I'm confused over choosing death for healthy American babies to relieve the consequences of unwise choices

Let's go further in comparisons of the Thai boys' dilemma with those of babies in American wombs.

The coach made a poor choice to go exploring with his soccer boys during monsoon season when caves often flood.

But did we kill the boys because of the soccer coach's poor choice?

No. We saved the boys' lives.

Again, I'm confused.

In seeking to resolve the riddle some might conclude that expectant American mothers' could say:

"It's my cave. It's my decision. It's my life. I want to abort the baby and end its life, and anybody who tries to stop me is my enemy."

I'm thinking. Give me a moment.

That argument makes me want to find the owner of the cave in Thailand and ask him if anyone sought his permission to enter, or if the government asked for permission to save the lives of those boys.

I would think, though I don't know for sure, that the cave owner was not involved in the decision to save lives.

Saving lives is not an individual choice; it seems by necessity to be a societal responsibility. Prizing life is evidence of civilization. When society wishes to bring intentional death, it means the downgrade and eventual collapse of civilization (e.g. "war").

Maybe somebody believes babies in the womb are not human until they can breathe, eat, and live without help from others.

But that doesn't answer the riddle over differences either. The boys in the cave couldn't breathe, eat, or live without help from others.

What's the difference between boys in a cave in Thailand and babies in wombs in America?

Why did so many Americans rejoice over saving the lives of the Thai boys but angrily demand the right to kill American babies?

159 comments:

That group of young boys depending on life-saving provisions by only one or two individuals who lacked the manpower or finances to rescue them.

The facts:

Thousands of trained, professional, courageous men and women as well as volunteers; finances available for the necessary equipment; parents and family members standing by in solidarity for support, etc.

Imagine for a moment...

A woman who discovers she is pregnant regardless of the circumstances that led to the life within her womb.

The fact:

She may or may not have the support of a husband, parents, friends, or even the partner who engaged in the sexual intimacy that resulted in the pregnancy. The prospect of an immense 18-20yr. responsibility, lack of employment or finances, little or no empathy from those who have never found themselves in such a situation, etc. may seem overwhelming.

In the end, no one will likely try to inflict guilt on the coach or the team for such a dangerous endeavor, but the pregnant woman will not be as fortunate.

I know there are immense layers to the whole to the whole conversation. But your quote: "I'm confused over choosing death for healthy American babies to relieve the consequences of unwise choices" hits the nail on the head. It comes down to the initial choice.

I have been having the same comparison of confusion in my mind with the passion for separation of families at the border and the lack of passion for abortion alternatives.

Regardless of how it is rationalized or explained or parsed, abortion is tantamount to telling God "I know better, how this life should end, than you do".

It is also good to remember that what the Nazis did during the holocaust may have been legal for the government to do, according to the laws passed by that regime, so the fact that abortion may be legal does not mean God would allow it.

The woman or girl can always have her baby for adoption. Many would love her baby as their own.

A couple in our church adopted two babies from Romania. ‘Their’ boy preached for a while. Their daughter at age 12 led a girl to the Lord while inviting her to a revival. She fought sever cancer and won. She was on the program “Dancing with the Stars”, and danced with Emmitt Smith, a “Dallas Cowboys” football player.

Our SS teacher and his wife spent one whole day praying to adopt a baby. They learned later their adopted baby was born on the day of their prayer.

Victorious, Why not? Although he wouldn't need to adopt, just establish paternity/custody. If he is willing to take on that responsibility and she isn't, then why would it be a problem. Basically what you are describing is a custody agreement.

One of the biggest changes that needs to happen is to make adoption affordable for the average couple. As a woman with one child who struggled for nine years to even have her, adoption was never possible for us due to the cost. Adoption costs are ridiculous. Thirty thousand dollars to adopt an infant in the USA? More than that if you go overseas. That's craziness.

(And, yes, I know all about foster care and I am not of the emotional makeup to care for babies and children and then give them back. I watched one friend raise a newborn for a couple of years and then have to give her back to an unfit mother. I could not do it.)

To Wade's original point... I feel the same way every time I see these massive undertakings to rescue an animal. People will do everything in their power to save a puppy or kitten or duckling but don't think twice about ripping a child to shreds in the womb. I don't get it.

I feel for the women in these situations, as Victorious describes. I haven't heard harsh or uncaring responses to that. It is just that those difficulties are a red herring. They have nothing to do with whether the baby is a life worth saving. But they are concerns we need to be addressing. We need to make adoption easier and/or cheaper so that the many people who would love to adopt actually could. We need to make sure we have support systems for women who choose to keep their babies. But at the same time we need to teach the sanctity of life, that abortion is not your go-to option, that sex is a serious matter and has consequence, etc.

'The fact:She may or may not have the support of a husband, parents, friends, or even the partner who engaged in the sexual intimacy that resulted in the pregnancy. The prospect of an immense 18-20yr. responsibility, lack of employment or finances, little or no empathy from those who have never found themselves in such a situation, etc. may seem overwhelming.'

How does that turn into a calculus for murder?

The thousands are out there for those who look. Would that the public would step up for the unborn as they have for the kids in the cave. But cultural politics has informed the woman that she can kill her child as a solution. Would society have paused and asked the coach which of the kids he would like to kill instead of making the effort and expense to get him out?

It is just that those difficulties are a red herring. They have nothing to do with whether the baby is a life worth

But at the same time we need to teach the sanctity of life,

It was not a red herring...Jeremy.

You are assuming, as many others do, that the embryo is a life. But many do not believe as we do. We cannot enforce our Christian values on the whole world and in this case, a woman who may believe differently than we do.

Additionally, with all due respect, you have given credence to the fact that regardless of one's beliefs, the woman must be made to feel guilt for her decision. Perhaps her life is not held in the same measure of esteem and/or sanctity.

I am glad you shared the link to your story. Knowing how God has used you and watching your lovely family of children and grandchildren from a distance before you knew the truth behind your birth... It has made me think long and hard about the "exceptions' that everyone rattles off so matter of fact. You were an "exception" and you and your amazing family wouldn't be here...

I’m pro-life, but have to point out some factual errors. Beethoven was not the product of rape. The article you link to by Nelson Price does not make that claim. No musicologist does either. Dr Price’s article claims that Beethoven’s parents had syphilis and tuberculosis. Not true. Price claims that B was the 5th child. Not true. He was the 2nd. His older brother died in infancy. While I agree with the idea that abortion may rob us of someone with Beethoven-like potential, I must protest using false information to make that point. Beethoven’s genius may be legendary, but he was a real person, not a myth that we can change or embellish to fit our arguments. The story about Beethoven’s family is known as The Beethoven fallacy and is not original to Dr Price, but have been passed around to make the point about not aborting potential. It is not a true story. I think it doesn’t serve pro-lifers like us well to use false stories to make our points. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Great_Beethoven_fallacy

Being a long-time adventure junkie, climbing big mountains and having watched or participated in several rescues I view this cave drama a little differently.

Climbing in the Andes in Peru and Bolivia for example requires days of overland travel to simply make it to a lower level base camp. When you and your gear arrive its not a national park, theres no ranger in a smokey bear hat, theres no campground with hot showers, its the middle of nowhere with no road access. You can’t see a town or any lights in the distance.There’s no one to bring in an ambulance, Bolivia for example doesn’t have rescue helicopters. In most cases there aren’t any or many other climbers climbing the same route that you are. If you fall and don’t die immediately you will most likely die before help can even be gathered and is headed your way.

In other words you are on your own. Your safety and life are directly influenced by the choices you make on the mountain. There’s old mountaineers and there’s bold mountaineers, but theres not many old bold mountaineers.

Parallel to remote areas like the the ones I mentioned above are areas like the Swiss the Alps, the Pacific North West, Colorado. These areas have large infrastructure at the base. Towns/cities, hospitals, paid rescue teams, help is usually a phone call away. Risk in areas like this is mitigated by the fact that you consider that if you get in a bad spot there’s help available almost on demand. Teams of rescue pro’s can sled you off the mountain, a snowmobile can haul you out and a helicopter is just a dispatcher’s call away.

Can you guess in which scenario that more people find themselves in need of rescue? People take risks differently when they know they can be “rescued” easily.

I suspect, that the coach that took the boys into the cave had been in several times, although it was a cave that required some wriggling to get into some areas and maybe a bit of easy climbing there was minimal risk. Until it flooded unexpectedly. Then the game changed. Fortunately for them rescue experts were able to reach them.

I think that pro-choicers view abortion somewhat like the second scenario. They can do as they please and IF they get in a jam there’s always a rescue available. I think if there were no rescue (abortion) available and a bad choice resulted in pregnancy complete with a full term baby that many would see the risk differently.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT MAKING ABORTION ILLEGAL WOULD KEEP UNWANTED PREGNANCIES FROM OCCURRING.

I’m drawing comparisons about how pro-choice believers see abortion differently than pro-life believers. I do believe for the most part that any women who has an abortion feels something about the termination of life. Call it conscience, call it remorse, I believe they feel something. But rescue is always a way out. The difference in acknowledging abortion as taking life (IMO) vs. rescuing helpless children as saving life is just a mechanism to justify choices. Both are seen as a rescue to pro-choice people.

Thanks for the factual correction. I happened to read the link from Dr. Nelson Price who stated Beethoven was the product of a rape. I'll let the link stand, though I admit I'm not an expert on the life of Beethoven.

Abortion is a complex issue that has become a political football. As a political football, the abortion "debate" consists largely of politicians screaming simplistic panaceas at each other rather than trying to deal with the problems. The left pretends that killing a fetus is no more significant than removing a wart. The right pretends that making abortion illegal will eliminate all abortions.

For example, lots of pro-lifers suggest adoption as the solution to abortion. That is a good idea--for the roughly 1/3 of women who have abortions and don't have other kids.

For the other 2/3--what do you say to children who have seen a sibling sent off to some stranger, never to be seen again?

Similarly, 2/3 of women who have abortions are poor. This suggests that finances often weigh heavily into the decision to abort.

Now, some progressives would point out how odd it is to oppose abortion but also to oppose public assistance for health care, day care, and other such policies that make life easier on families (especially single mothers). They would (correctly) point out that the US abortion rate is much higher than it is in Western Europe, even though Western European governments frequently pay for abortions.

However, even in progressive "utopias," women still do seek abortions. Why? Most likely because they are already overwhelmed by taking care of the kids that they already have, and can't imagine the prospect of dealing with another.

This is where the church ought to step in, but frequently it doesn't. Sure, American churches sponsor adoption agencies and crisis pregnancy centers, but the mission of those agencies generally ends when the child is still in diapers.

I would love to be part of a church that offers a family to single mothers in need of one. Not just money, but people who will support the woman's family, not for 9 months, but for 18 years. These people would babysit the kids on a regular basis, bring meals several times a week, make grocery runs, help the kids with homework, take them to church if needed, be on call for emergency health care, and otherwise show the love of Christ to this woman and her kids.

Obviously, these people would go through training and background checks. There would be several people assigned to each family, so as not to overly burden any one of the helpers, and the woman would be free to ask for different helpers if she didn't click with the ones who were initially sent.

This would be a far more useful contribution to the abortion crisis than the billions of dollars that have been wasted trying to repeal Roe v. Wade, given that the abortion rate in the US is now lower than it was before Roe v. Wade. And it would also present the church as people who do positive things, rather than a bunch of naysayers.

If Roe v. Wade is repealed, I'll be happy--but I'll be far more happy if its not being repealed inspires the church to acts of love and testimonies of God's mercy.

I would love to be part of a church that offers a family to single mothers in need of one. Not just money, but people who will support the woman's family, not for 9 months, but for 18 years. These people would babysit the kids on a regular basis, bring meals several times a week, make grocery runs, help the kids with homework, take them to church if needed, be on call for emergency health care, and otherwise show the love of Christ to this woman and her kids.

Everette, this is wishful thinking, but in reality this solution is simply not feasible. Assuming a church would primarily make this service available to members of the congregation only, some churches have thousands of members. If only a small percentage of those have unwanted pregnancies, that ministry would quickly become overwhelming.

I suggest that holding the males involved accountable and responsible for both the financial and shared care and upbringing of the child might seriously curtail careless sexual encounters on the part of both.

I think we need a culture change to EMPOWER women to feel supported, loved, encouraged, and empowered to take the journey that leads to the rescue of a life.

I think it can happen. I'm all for it.

Wade, women are already EMPOWERED. We just don't want them to use their power the way some choose to. It's obvious not all want to take the journey that leads to becoming a single parent. That might change if they had the support, love, and encouragement of the "father" of the child they are carrying.

After reflection, removing the link about Beethoven was a better solution. I agree with you that factual inaccuracy shifts focus. I'm contacting Dr. Price to get the source for his article. Until then, the link is removed.

Christiane, I will readily admit I am frustrated by the way things are handled in regards to immigration in this country. The law side of me believes they chose to break the law by entering the country outside of legal means, therefore there are consequences. The grace side of me has encountered so many folks who are upstanding folks from other countries who chose the wrong way yet are fully functioning, community building families, therefore how can we bridge the legal divide?

The same holds true on the abortion debate for me. The law side of me says you made a choice that has the potential to create life, therefore there are consequences. The grace side says offer help, encouragement, and alternatives to women to avoid the destruction of life.

For me, the confusion lies in the fact that one person's life is more valued because of their location based on politics and what I know that God teaches about the value of all life in and out of the womb.

Under the US Constitution, Congress has no delegated power over immigration, only naturalization. Immigration powers belong to the States under the 10th Amendment. To support unconstitutional immigration laws is to support lawlessness.

Imagine for a moment if the persons who make the decision to have sex that produces an unwanted infant that is in the mother's womb faced the "abortion" instead of the baby. If dad (loving man or rapist, incest, or husband) knew either the infant would be born OR dad would have his arms and legs cut off, his torso crushed, his head cut off and crushed, and all of him sucked up with a vacuum cleaner all without anesthetic, would dad be more cautious about baby making and more likely to be supportive of the mother? What of the woman? If she knew either the infant would be born or else she would suffer the father's same fate would she be more likely to carry the child or have an abortion? What if convicted rapists and incestual molesters were "aborted" instead of the child?

It is true not everyone believes the mother is carrying a human being, but modern technology has pretty well proven that. You cannot cut arms and legs and heads off of "just blobs of tissue." Blobs of tissue do not have beating hearts, either.

I'm not stupid either, just confused also how when two people (or one if rape or molestation) make the decision to engage in a process known to produce children, and a child is produced that they do not want, the child can be subject to such abuse and brutality. Would we allow this macabre torture if we simply insisted on doing it outside the womb?

It makes as much sense as freeing the drunk driver who caused a wreck and hanging the victim of the wreck instead. We need to be seriously less nice and more clinical about just what happens in an abortion.

And if we care about mothers, and dads, and born children not being tortured and brutalized, how on earth can we justify doing this to tiny infants?

How long will God relent on an American that allows such a deplorable act? God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The old testament is proof that God does not look the other way forever!! Christians need to PRAY for America!!

What if convicted rapists and incestual molesters were "aborted" instead of the child?

Linda, both your very graphic description of what may or may not happen in an abortion procedure, and the one I posted here are moot points. Here's the reason...The "loving fathers," rapists, molesters, traffickers, etc. are not held responsible for the most part. They engage in sex with little concern about the consequences since the partner is the one left making the decisions often out of desperation, embarrassment, fear, intimidation or other cultural shaming techniques imposed on the girl/woman alone.

What kind of logical reasoning is a 12 yr.old girl qualified to make that will impact the rest of her life? How can we shame a woman who may have been raped by her father or brother for years? Why do we blame a woman who was assaulted by her pastor or a law officer? How can we imagine what a young woman like those chained in the basement for 11 years (Ariel Castro) suffered? Can we understand how a girl/woman might have made a mistake under the pressure to prove her love?

Let's look at the soccer team for a minute to try to make a rational comparison. How in the world could that soccer coach encourage an adventure into caves knowing the monsoon season was upon them? Miles into the tunnel and facing the floods, he no doubt realized the folly of that suggestion. He was a leader to them and bore the responsibility to care for them while in certain circumstances. Watching those boys dehydrate and starve must have weighed heavily on him. But there was little he could do to "undo" what was done. One navy seal died in an effort to rescue them.

The coach made a terrible mistake. He made a bad choice and probably didn't think the possible repercussions through or he may have realized the consequences of such an journey. Shall we pour on the guilt for years and remind him of it for the rest of his coaching days? Should we try to imagine the despair those boys felt as they were wondering why they went with him and how long they might last in that dark, flooding cave where no one knew where they were?

Come on! People make bad choices. Some find themselves in situation where they had/have no choice but are at the mercy of another.

Some of the desperation, sorrow, and overwhelming fear of responsibility might be alleviated if the father or partner recognized his part and shared the responsibility. Where is he?

Christiane, if there was a like button on your post, I would click it.

So maybe to clarify, it appears you are concerned (rightly so) with the treatment of children post-decision that caused conception. In my opinion that is the grace we are called to show. (ie Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. For that, your spot on.

As a preacher, how do we preach/teach/disciple prechoice so that a child never had to be aborted because they are not wanted from an immoralaction?

“As a preacher, how do we preach/teach/disciple prechoice so that a child never had to be aborted because they are not wanted from an immoral action?”

You can’t. Not being flip. Humans pastors or the most sincere effective Christians can’t insure that an immoral action “never” occurs.

It’s called sin for a reason. And we all are sinners.

All we can do is the best we can in following what God commands us to do. The rest is up to Him and how the ears receive, and the heart processes the Word delivered through word and action to the lost world.

There’s things we can do to make it better but those are listed in the comments above.

Victorious/Christiane: I'm not clear on the point you make as you introduce the difficulties of pregnant women who have zero support systems and babies being torn from their mother's arms on the border into the abortion discussion.

Are you proposing that this (injustice to women/pain of consequences inflicted on mothers and their children due to illegal entry) somehow justifies the destroying the millions of "yet to be delivered" infants OR:

- are you simply explaining the hardships and dilemma in which many women in the world are forced to deal?

If it's the latter, can you understand why many of us would interpret your introducing the "orange" (women's hardships) as justifying the other "apple" (babies being slaughtered?

If your motive is the former (defending women who undergo unjustified hardships), why is it presented in the context of abortion?

What's the difference between boys in a cave in Thailand and babies in wombs in America?

I'll try to share how I see the difference and hope it makes some sense.

The difference is how we examined (or didn't) the circumstances that led to the boy's captivity in the cave.

Imagine for a moment that the rescue failed and all 13 died in the cave. Should we blame the cave? The cave, after all, definitely played a part in their death. The dark, lack of oxygen, lack of food and water, particles present that caused lung infection, deep water as the result of monsoon flooding, other conditions that (could have) contributed to the end of lives. Taking all these conditions and components into consideration, we would arrive at a somewhat reasonable understanding of the tragic outcome and we would grieve. Would this tragedy lead us to conclude that all caves are dangerous? Of course not. Given different circumstances at a safe time of year, it would have a very different and positive outcome.

We owe those who have resorted to the tragic (desperate?) solution of abortion deserve at least the same degree of analysis in understanding the (possible) reasons for their choices. Granted all the extenuating circumstances are not as neatly packaged in one central (cave) as was the case of the soccer team. But there are negative, painful, and even dangerous conditions that have led some to resort to less-than-desirable solutions.

To fail to examine (or accept) the conditions of some individuals and to blame them all is the same irrational reasoning that would conclude all caves are dangerous and lead to stereotyping and a lack of understanding and compassion. Not all who have resorted to an abortion are selfish, self-centered, cold-hearted, “loose” women. We can't know which are those who resorted to an abortion out of desperation, abandonment by the partner, lack of support (financial, emotional, physical) or health-related conditions.

And finally, even though women throughout history have been abused, ridiculed, and often isolated Jesus showed love and compassion to the woman at the well, the woman who washed his feet with her tears, the woman who ostracized as unclean, the women who traveled with Him and supported Him out of their means, and did so publicly.

Your thinking is not faulty, it is just different from the thinking of those who support abortion rights. And your search for a logical or rational argument that justifies in your mind the dichotomy you perceive, is not likely to ever be fruitful.

It begins at the beginning, as most things do.

If I may so bold as to presume your way of thinking--shared by millions of thoughtful Christians -- it likely goes something like this: From the moment of conception, a living baby exists. That baby is imbued immediately with every right and privilege of both humanity and citizenship. That baby's parts are being knit together by none other than God, the sovereign Creator of the universe, and it is therefore a sin against God Himself to interfere with that development. In short, if that which is conceived when a human sperm enters a human egg and successfully attaches to a mother's nourishing womb is a fully vested baby, then that baby has inalienable and moral rights, and so a voluntary abortion of that baby is murder.

For those of your fellow American Christians who have a somewhat science-oriented way of thinking, when a human sperm enters a human egg and successfully attaches to a mother's nourishing womb, what is formed is a fetus. A fetus is a gathering of cells with the potential to become a human baby, but fulfillment of that potential takes months. Until that fetus realizes its potential and becomes a viable human baby, its rights are subject to those of the person in whose body the fetal cells are being carried, i.e. the mother.

This other way of thinking concludes that the further along the fetus gets in its development, the more its rights accrue, to the point where the baby's rights are equal to those of the mother. The trick for legislatures is to determine, as a matter of public policy, when, in the fetal development, does that equalization of rights occur.

A Christian with this different way of thinking probably acknowledges that God created the process by which fetuses become babies, but is unconvinced that God gets involved in the knitting together of each and every human being that was ever conceived since the world began. Besides, it doesn't make sense that God would use the Psalms to set forth such life-altering doctrine: The Psalms contain too many metaphors, allegories, and poetic images to sort through for anyone to be so certain about their applicability to life and death decisions.

A pro-abortion Christian who thinks about God being is fully responsible for every single human conception to ever occur at any time anywhere on the globe in the manner of Psalms 139:13, thinks that such a God must be a Terrible, Cruel entity. Why? Because for random and unknowable reasons that God withholds pregnancy from some women (regardless of their love for Him), causes babies to spontaneously abort for any number of senseless reasons such as, for example, they attach to a Fallopian tube instead of the womb, and that God chooses to allow pregnancies to arise under horrific circumstances such as rape and incest. In short, Christians who think differently than you about abortion do not believe that fetuses are viable human babies. They likely thing that the God of Scripture is much more concerned about His living human beings (like Thai soccer players and mothers) than He is about a group of fetal cells with only the potential to become a living human being.

These two ways of thinking will forever be in opposition. You are not likely to ever understand how people can rejoice about the rescue of the Thai children from the cave and yet also advocate for women's right to abort, if your thinking assumes that human babies with fully vested human rights are actually created at the moment of conception.

There is absolutely nothing scientific about what you said or, as you hint, others think. The ‘fetus’ is a human being. Check the DNA – what else do you think it is? What other ‘potential’ future does it have other than what its DNA SCIENTIFICALLY attests?!

While trying to feign SCIENCE you then note ‘until that fetus REALIZES’. This is the skewed thinking that denies the truth of SCIENCE that the entity under discussion is fully a HUMAN BEING and deserving of the recognition that it is from the beginning CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, IN HIS LIKENESS.

Out of your thinking you and others are arguing that the woman has the right to slaughter by dismemberment that helpless entity in her womb because it is only ‘fetal cells.’ How many ‘fetal cells’ does it take to make it a human being? How many ‘fetal cells’ does it take until you recognize in that entity the ‘image and likeness of God’?

Under the guise of being scientific you have reduced those who bear the ‘image and likeness of God’ to beings subject to death and slaughter on a whim just like Germany did with the Jews.

You said to Alaskan:"Under the guise of being scientific you have reduced those who bear the ‘image and likeness of God’ to beings subject to death and slaughter on a whim just like Germany did with the Jews."

'The coach made a terrible mistake. He made a bad choice and probably didn't think the possible repercussions through or he may have realized the consequences of such an journey. Shall we pour on the guilt for years and remind him of it for the rest of his coaching days? Should we try to imagine the despair those boys felt as they were wondering why they went with him and how long they might last in that dark, flooding cave where no one knew where they were?'

Some here would argue, holding the comparison, such an error or failure on his part would justify killing the soccer team.

I think you get at the heart of the difference in perspectives at play here. To extrapolate a bit, I think the difference between the boys and the unborn (that you allude to) comes down to the issue of the subjective experience of suffering. Both are in situations that pose danger to their continued existence. Only the boys are capable of experiencing that danger consciously and experiencing suffering as a result. Only the boys understand the danger their environment and circumstances pose. Only the boys felt the fear (terror) of the dark, the damp, the tight quarters, the quickening depletion of their limited resources, etc. In that sense, the boys are unequivocally "human" in their experience of the situation. The unborn, whatever their promise, whatever their potential, whatever their future inheritance, are not yet fully "human" in that most important respect. And if there is any small mercy to be found in abortion (and I am not a proponent of abortion) it lies in the fact that the unborn don't subjectively experience such suffering.

You are using the slaughtering of children in the womb to bash the Republican party. Odd that you have nary a word against the Democratic party whose very platform is a complete endorsement and advocacy for that slaughter.

I get it, you don't like the Republicans. I would suggest more time fighting abortion than slamming the Republicans.

Dear friends of mine adopted a child this week. A disabled child of a different race....why,because the mother valued the life of her child, one she felt incapable of raising. There ARE many that will love these children.

Back during the Convention, I wrote to express concern about professors like John Babler and Frank Catanzaro in the Biblical Counseling program at SWBTS. These men have been involved in shaming women who have sought divorce as an escape from abusive marriages, even when they are protecting their children. It is reported that they discount the validity of modern psychiatric medications. At least one is involved in the quiverfull movement. We don't believe their views reflect the strong majority of Southern Baptists. Their continued ability to influence pastors-in-training is horrifying to many of us. It is not enough to dismiss the former president. SWBTS must be cleansed of this misogyny in its classrooms if the Lord is to bless its future (see Fall 2018 course listing below). I actually saw the course listings referenced on the Baptist Blogger site. I did not post there, since I am not comfortable posting other than anonymously. I appreciate being able to do so on your blog. I represent a woman and her children who were hurt very deeply through one of these professors.

6187 CNSLN-4903-A Spec Iss: Bibl Cnsl & Abuse John Babler MTWFF 8:00AM- 5:00PM1:00PM- 2:30PM1:00PM- 2:30PMSPEC ISS: BIBL CNSL & ABUSEThis course is offered annually and is associated with the national conference of the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors. The class will explore topics within the field of biblical counseling related to the conference theme.

Meeting Dates: 08/23/2018 - 12/14/2018

Credit Hours: 3.00

Additional Course Fees : 0.00

Room :

Notes : This course will be help in conjunction with the annual Association of Certified Biblical Counselors Conference. The dates of the conference are October 1-3, 2018 at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, TX. In addition to attending the conferences, students will also be meet on Friday, September 21 and Friday, October 26 from 1-2:30. Please contact Dr. Babler for further details.

One thing not mention on this subject is what if there’s an argument who the father is?

My father had 5 brothers and 2 sisters that lived around Bonham, Texas. One brother was told by a sheriff, “If you don’t marry that girl her father is going to kill you. He’s a good man and it’s not right for him to go to prison.”

He argued he was not the father, but he married her. It was a ‘shotgun’ wedding for both of them since neither loved the other. Three days later he left the country and they never met again.

After the ‘old folks’ died, the BABY visited Bonham where she knew her mother was raised.

Someone told her the story. There was no DNA back then, but she looked like our uncle. She was delighted to know she had so many kinsmen.

PSYesterday I was ordering pizza when my cellphone rang. I put it on speaker.

When it comes to the slaughter of children in the womb, those who don't recognize what it actually entails, and those who make arguments for it, especially under the guise of it as a legitimate biblical option, then I give no quarter. This is a deadly serious issue and one that no one came claim ignorance, especially those posting to a blog. Do I have to post pictures for folks to wake up?

Would you hold to a civil conversation on 'The Viability of Slavery as a Christian Option'?

Which is more offensive to you? Those who advocate human slaughter in the womb as a viable biblical option, or those who use strong language fighting that very grave evil?

A strong verbal position against the most seriously grave evil is not abusive. Taking it lightly is.

I am aware that some of the women who choose abortion see themselves in a hopeless and desperate situation. First, that is an extremely small number out of the 1,000,000 women who choose abortion. Secondly, unless this grave evil is faced head on it will not be stopped. Less than firm language and argument leave those very few women (<1% by most counts) thinking that the solution is to kill their child. What other desperate situation of anyone would you say or think or give approval of whose solution was to slaughter a child?

Work hard to identify and help those few women personally or through an organization but never, ever, ever, ever offer the dismemberment of their child as a viable option in any sense or with any words.

I am aware that some of the women who choose abortion see themselves in a hopeless and desperate situation.

That's a start, Shawn...awareness of their difficult situation.

First, that is an extremely small number out of the 1,000,000 women who choose abortion.

Do you have proof that those situations are a small number? Please post the link where you found that <1% estimate.

Secondly, unless this grave evil is faced head on it will not be stopped.

What would the "faced on" method look to you?

Work hard to identify and help those few women personally or through an organization...

Please share how these efforts have been successful for you, Shawn.

What other viable option would you suggest? Making the father accountable perhaps? Enforcing some type of contraception; i.e. mandatory vasectomy for some? Some sort of mutual accountability contract signed prior to engaging in sexual intimacy?

And according to the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the nation’s leading abortion seller, Planned Parenthood:• At current rates, an estimated 1/4 of American women will have an abortion by the age of 45• About 15,000 abortions are attributed to rape and incest — representing 1.5 percent of all abortions.

OK, 1.5%.

My part of ‘faced on’ is being very vocal fighting it, here for instance.

My church and other organizations that I support.

I am all for making the father accountable.

No, no easy answers. But why do some folks (certainly not you I pray) still hold killing the child in the womb as a viable option?

My research provided several links that seriously question the credibility of the Guttmacher Institute and if I'm reading correctly, as of 2010, it is no longer associated with Planned Parenthood despite the fact that PP gave $2,142,076 of our tax dollars to their “research” arm, Guttmacher. Additionally, there is evidence of their blatant bias and poor research ethics.

Many years ago, I was employed for a period of 12 years by this agency (http://www.actabuse.com/about-act/) that provides care, information, groups, and safe housing for victims of rape, domestic violence, sex trafficking, child porn, etc. and I can tell you that the numbers don't tell the whole story regardless of their source. The reasons should be obvious for those of us who read Wade's blog and TWW. Many are not reported; many are not believed; many are covered up; and the victim is often blamed.

I met many, many young girls, women, and even a male or two at the hospital ER. They are traumatized to say the least. In additional to the ER, there are other local agencies that offer assistance counseling and nurse practitioners provide a "morning-after" pill which acts as a deterrent to pregnancy.

How is it possible to make the father of the child accountable when victims are often fearful of disclosing him and if she does, runs the risk of being blamed or not believed. The options are few. News reports in the past several years are evidence of the prevalence of sexual crimes in the church, sports arena, military, and even the home.

I am pro-life although I understand the issues that often lead women to take the options afforded by Planned Parenthood.

Maybe I am missing something. Do you think I am ignorant and completely unaware or completely lacking in compassion for them for arguing that killing a child is not the solution to the problems these women and girls face?

You didn’t like my statistic but you failed to provide your own to give the ‘legitimate’ numbers and percentage. Why is that? What is the true percentage and what is your source?

Was your question about holding the male accountable a set-up so that you could expose a lack of understanding on my part? What is it – you don’t want to hold them responsible or that we should not even consider it because it is impossible?

What’s your point and intention? That only you can address the issue? That though ‘pro-life’ you ‘understand’ that killing the child is a legitimate solution and that I should adopt the same stance? That such is the only compassionate position to take?

I'm sorry Shawn. I haven't been able to help. Perhaps if I had said that Victorious was trying to HELP you, it would have sounded better.Help, ministry, patience, kindness . . . in their way, these gifts all mean the same thing and all come from the same deep well of the Holy Spirit.....

Tom attempted to help you, also.

I think, in trying to help you, and perhaps even in our failing, we still have given you an opportunity to express your anger and frustration openly, which seems to be something you very much needed to do.

St. Paul, when he was Saul, possessed also a great, righteous and angry zeal and Our Lord was able to turn that strength to His service in an intervention in which Saul was given a deep insight into the workings of the Kingdom of Our Lord, so much so that in time, as St.Paul, he was inspired to write the magnificent Corinthians 13 chapter . . .

Shawn, Our Lord has the power to redirect our strengths and turn them towards His Ways. There is precedent.

1 Cor. Chapter 13" If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Maybe this has already been discussed in some of the deleted comments - my apologies, if so.

We tend to focus on "abortion" in limbo - not connected to the underlying principles that base the discussion.

I have, in my human body right now, items that could save another post-birth human being - blood, an extra kidney, skin, tissue, stem cells, a portion of a liver, etc. Other humans, in desperate need of these items, will die horrible deaths because I choose not to give these items. Why is that allowed?

The principle of bodily autonomy - we hold, as a society, that it is a greater good to allow "me" to have absolute control of my body from the skin in. No one can take my blood (which would cause me no lasting harm), for example - no rich person or politically connected person can send the police to take my kidney to save their life. Even death-row prisoners have that right.

We extend this principle - that no human being has the right to another human being's physical resources - even to corpses. My corpse (which I have NO need of anymore) cannot be, unilaterally, used for organ or tissue donation purposes. No rich or well-connected person may override my wishes or my family's wishes to take my corpse's physical resources without my consent. Post-birth humans will die horrible deaths for loss of the resources buried with my corpse.

It is this same principle that is behind (most people's) disdain of torture, and at the root of "no cruel or unusual punishment".

I hold that, as Shawn noted, a fetus is a person from conception. And, as a person, they have the rights of any other person, not more rights. I, as a post-born human, have no rights to the physical resources of another human being EVEN TO SAVE MY LIFE OR PREVENT A HORRIBLE DEATH. (Dying of kidney failure is a horrible way to go, for example.) I don't even have those rights over my mother - if my mother had blood that I needed and refused to offer it, I die. If another human being carries a blood type that would save my life, but refuses to offer it, I cannot compel them to - that is their choice.

If that human being DID offer blood at one point (say I needed it every three months), they can also change their mind - offer one or two 'treatments', then kill me by refusing to offer more. I cannot compel their acquiescence to my need, even though the loss of that resource will kill me.

A living organ donor can revoke their consent to the transplant that will save another's life right up to the last moment before the surgery. So why does a pregnant woman have less rights to her physical resources than a corpse? Why does a fetus, as a person, have the right to compel another human being to give physical resources, especially when pregnancy (even normal, uncomplicated pregnancy) is not harm-free?

A non-pregnant human can deny any other human life itself, or even cause their horrible death - we do it all the time. A non-pregnant human can even offer life for a period of time (such as blood transfusion), but not be compelled to continue to offer it.

I want there to be as few abortions as possible, but that is accomplished by such things as supports for mothers and babies, medical care for pregnant women and their children, birth control and many other things - lollipop laws, sweet things we can suck on to ignore the real broken leg and not have to face the problems, we know do not help.

I don't want to weaken the principle of bodily autonomy - I don't want rich or well-connected people to be able to force others to give physical resources without consent, or to force those who have, for example, donated blood for a period of time to continue to do so forever (or even for a limited time). I don't want to see, as another example, death-row prisoners used as blood or organ banks.

We have been trained to a different visceral reaction to a fetus losing its life due to withdrawal of consent to use physical resources than to a child dying of kidney failure with no donor. Yet, we would, I hope, be loathe to force someone to donate the life-saving kidney or to say yes, then withdraw consent. I am equally loathe to give rights beyond those of any post-born human being to a fetus (to demand ongoing use of another human's physical resources) or to allow a pregnant woman less rights to her physical resources than a corpse is allowed.

All of those words and you end on this -' I am equally loathe to give rights beyond those of any post-born human being to a fetus (to demand ongoing use of another human's physical resources) or to allow a pregnant woman less rights to her physical resources than a corpse is allowed.'

Is there some way that the child self created and then forced itself on to the woman. In the vast majority of the cases (Victorious's post on stats not withstanding when it gets here) of abortions serve merely as birth control, i.e., consensual sex that resulted in a child and which the woman (with or without the man's input beyond copulation) has decided to destroy rather than carry to term.

So, the child was brought to existence by the woman freely who has now decided to withdraw her responsibility for the life she helped create.

"So, the child was brought to existence by the woman who has now decided to withdraw her responsibility for the life she helped create."

Good observation - let's then use a one-moment old baby as the example. This baby REQUIRES a blood transfusion from its mother to sustain its life - no one else will do. This child meets all the criteria - it was brought to existence by the woman who bore it mere moments ago. Does the moments-old child have the right to compel the other human (the only one that will do) to give it the physical resource it requires?

'Does the moments-old child have the right to compel the other human (the only one that will do) to give it the physical resource it requires?'

It would take some very skewed thinking totally divorced from the witness of Scripture to argue that it does not or that the woman, having helped create the child, can so easily divorce herself from the responsibility for that child.

Try to get as clever as you like, you are still arguing for the right to slaughter a child in the womb.

Try to get as clever as you like, you are still arguing for the right to slaughter a child in the womb.

Shawn, whether we like it or not, women already have "the right" to end a pregnancy; i.e. her body...her choice.

Perhaps we could resolve the problem of abortion to a great extent by approaching it from a different angle. For example, we have directed all our animosity, criticism and blame on the woman who is seeking an end to the pregnancy.

The obvious root cause of those pregnancies (however many annually or worldwide) is sexual intimacy...consensual or otherwise.

1) We need to pursue additional education about birth control for both males and females. There have been some advances in the development of male birth control https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/18/male-contraceptive-pill-safe-use-does-not-harm-sex-drive-first/ and those specifically for women have also been advanced. A google search will provide much information in this area. Placing the accountability for birth control on both will hopefully bring an awareness to the male that has traditionally been placed primarily or even solely on the female.

2) We need to stop advocating for male authority over females to the exclusion of positions of authority in churches for women. We need to see the absolute absurdity of John Piper's 83 areas women are allowed to use their gifts.

3) We need to seeing abortion as always an intentional "murder" but recognize it may be a choice made by some out of trauma, fear, and desperation following an incident over which they had little or no control.

The solution to the problem is way more complicated than simply holding a "stop babies from being murdered" sign outside a Planned Parenthood agency. In my opinion, it starts with educating our young males about the repercussions of sowing their wild oats and justifying it as the result of a natural function of testosterone.

Pregnancy, after all, is not the result of a female participation in sexual activity alone but we have successfully? excused the male for his participation.

So my observation is that we can complain all we want about women having abortions, but it's not likely to change until we resolve the root causes.

"It would take some very skewed thinking totally divorced from the witness of Scripture . ."

In that particular example, not really. There are Christian sects who hold that blood transfusions are against the witness of scripture (based on the Torah prohibition around ingesting blood) and would, in fact, REQUIRE that the woman refuse the blood transfusion from herself to her moments-old newborn. It is, again, arguments based on the principle of bodily autonomy that are referenced to defend this practice of sincerely held Christian beliefs. The question is whether government can COMPEL breach of bodily autonomy, if it is allowed to do so, who gets the greater right to physical resources, at what age (if any) does the additional right terminate and if government is allowed to do so at X and to class of people A, what stops it from doing so at Y and class of people W? A very complex discussion, with as many answers that will satisfy everyone as a discussion about other principle-based issues, like fighting wars, the death penalty, requiring seat belts . . that is, none.

In the mid 90's I was going thru a deep depression. I had decided the only way to cope was to basically 'take my feet off the pedals' and just coast the rest of my life. I would do what I had to do for my family but would not allow myself to 'feel' as much as I could. Unless you've been there, you have NO idea how much severe emotional pain hurts and how debilitating it can be. Then...in the midst of this, I discovered I was pregnant with my 3rd child. This baby was in no way planned.I was (and am) married to the father of our first two. I have always been- and still am- pro-life. But for the first time in my life, I understood what a woman meant when she said she felt 'trapped' by a pregnancy. I did not consider abortion, but I 'got it' regarding the turmoil an expected pregnancy could cause a woman. If we are going to allow God to change hearts regarding abortion, then we cannot assume that a woman is getting one literally and totaling for convenience sake. And even if she is, we need to follow the Lord in regards to any communication we have with her regarding her planning to get one. If we do not let God lead us, we could throw up unnecessary walls that could make it harder for the woman to make the right decision. Also, if the woman is in turmoil and distress and we fail to follow God's leading in regards to communicating with her, we will only add to her pain. Rubbing salt into an open wound.

"Perhaps we could resolve the problem of abortion to a great extent by approaching it from a different angle. For example, we have directed all our animosity, criticism and blame on the woman who is seeking an end to the pregnancy."

This is a bogus statement. The political system bent on portraying the murder of the innocents as being justified by protecting the rights of "women" is the main cause of the extraordinary level of occurrences of infants being killed through abortion procedures.

Never does the pro-"choice" advocates emphasize the rights of these infants who are waiting to be delivered to have "continued life". Never do they prioritize alternative methods for resolving the problem of unwanted pregnancies rather than killing the baby. Never do they advocate funded programs to support those with unwanted pregnancies until their babies are delivered and facilitate their unwanted babies being placed in homes desperate to have children. Never do they portray the reality of the value of the "life" of the infant waiting to be delivered.It is like they relish the killing rather than seeking alternative measures for resolving the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

Instead of promoting alternatives, they aggressively promote the denial of "life" and insist on making the system more convenient and even conducive to choosing to end that life rather than making some effort to accommodate the baby having a chance to live. They campaign for the right for the baby's lives to be taken later and later in the pregnancy with such justification as "they can't feel pain anyway" or "they are still not people until they come out of the womb so it is not murder to kill them when they are six months old." If it is a "wanted" pregnancy the announcement is made at conception, "I'm going to have a baby!" If it is an unwanted pregnancy the same people will say, "Well, there's always the option to kill it!" Insanity.

All of this in the guise of "politics". The pro-"choice" movement is responsible for discarding the reality of the lives of innocents being taken in horrific ways for the purpose of gaining women's support for their political agendas. They are in fact using deceitful, manipulative tactics to bamboozle all of those who will drink their swill into believing that they, their political representatives, are there to "protect your rights".

The pro-abortionists' favorite tactic is to demonize any who recognize the value of the life of an infant and who oppose their lives being tragically and inhumanely taken. Of course, they target "men" as being the greatest of demons because men have never experienced becoming pregnant. Those who categorically define "men" as being insensitive to the plight of abused and struggling women are repugnant to any rational-minded human. It is an absurd projection. Those who buy into it totally deny the reality that the majority of men love, respect, honor and value for all women. In fact, such people displaying the hate and discrimination for men are the most "sexist" OF ALL.

In reality, it is this pro-"choice" movement which is responsible for those millions of women involved having to deal with the misery and guilt associated with the intentional application of miscarriages (only worse than actual miscarriages because of the pain, mutilation, and inhumanity of forcibly extracting the infants from the womb, limb by limb).

NEVER in the history of humanity has there been a more cruel, un-Godly, intentional, mutilation of innocent human beings than the contemporary generations' holocaust which has probably taken more than 100 million lives globally and certainly 50 million lives taken in the US alone. If God does not judge our contemporary society for the intentional, demonic practice of this slaughter taking place, then I do not know anything about God.

Someone mentioned the need for more education in the consequences of sex.

My brother, Hez, thought the same many years ago. He was a high school coach that had classes for boys on health in Fairbanks, Alaska. He purchased an actual movie of a baby being born that was made to teach doctors. It lasted about 15 minutes. It had screams, close-up pictures that showed how the scalpel was used, and the baby coming.

Hez cautioned the boys the movie was very disturbing and for them to breathe deeply or they’d pass out. Some didn’t remember his words.

After many calls from parents the principal told Hez any further movies would be reviewed first.

“A woman in labor when her child is born…the pain is forgotten.” (John 16:21 Living Bible)

My daughter-in-law said, “That verse was obvious written by a man.” :)

I can clear this up for you, Wade - Those who have a secure financial foundation beneath them and their family cannot understand the circumstances of those who do not.

"Well, just do this..." never applies to those who don't have the means or resources to "Just do that".

An unwanted child will drive a woman into poverty. Her career dreams are over, her job prospects are minimum wage and any money she makes goes to childcare, hopes of finding a spouse are next to none and even her retirement is poor because of her wage history.

The bottom line is; Unless you are willing to step in and support these women you demand have these unwanted children, mind your own business.

"Why did so many Americans rejoice over saving the lives of the Thai boys but angrily demand the right to kill American babies?"

Okay, I'll play.

Why do so many Republicans cry over school shootings but support the NRA?~ Thoughts and prayers, but no action taken to prevent the next one.

FYI - The vast majority of abortions happen when the fetus resembles a tadpole. No brain or spinal cord, as those develop much later.A fetus is no more a baby than the egg you had for breakfast is a chicken.

If guns were removed from the public only the ‘bad’ would have guns. The best deterrent against ‘bad’ guns is ‘good’ guns.

Today’s newspaper gives two plans for Texas schools.

Governor Greg Abbott signed into law the Marshall program in 2012. It allows local school boards to authorize employees to carry a handgun on campus, but they must be trained by Texas Commission on Law Enforcement. They can’t carry guns around students, and only allows one gun-employee for every 400 students.

In 2007, the Guardian Plan allowed local school boards to determine training standards and authorize specific employees to carry a gun on campus at all times with no restrictions on how many teachers can be armed.

“Some states have passed laws that offer new parents paid maternity leave and, in many cases, paternity leave. California was the first state to pass such legislation. Through its Paid Family Leave Program, employees who participate in the State Disability Insurance Program can receive up to six weeks of partial pay for time off within the first year of their baby's birth. Two other states, Washington and New Jersey, have passed similar legislation, and other states may follow suit. Find out about the laws in your state.”

I do know that a few states have attempted to do the right thing for their people, but is that good enough in a country where THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT seems to be aligned against welcoming new life? Oh, the powers that be may SAY 'no, abortion is wrong (which is is) but they won't spend a dime in attempting to stand for that precious time when a mother cares for her newborn and bonds with it.

I think we have gone too far as a nation in a very wrong direction:we have created a country where it is legal to abort a child, but we won't spend a dime as a nation to welcome the birth of a new baby, not a dime. Yet the very political party that REFUSES to support maternal paid leave at a national benefit is ALSO the party that hosts an angry strident and very misogynistic contempt for women who find themselves in difficult circumstances.

When our laws change again, and I think they will, I expect a blood bath of back alley butchering to take place. Because it isn't the law that ignores a glaring human need that prevents a bad decision, no.

IF people want to welcome new life, they have to understand that the new baby does not live in isolation . . . . there is a mother, a family and an employee who needs his workers in spite of the situation and the attitude in our country does not bode well for a woman who knows she is between a rock and a hard place, and there is this Greek chorus of hatred shouting down at her from on high. Why not help her? As a nation? And stop the hypocrisy that drives the engine of abortion???

Tom: "RB:Would you be willing to agree that women from the Democratic and Republican Party have abortions?"

Tom, absolutely. When there are 50 million abortions we know that it includes people from every race, ethnic group, political persuasion and probably our own family. Republicans are driven by their "political motivations" as are politicians from any party and of course this includes the winds of approval regarding the abortion issue.

For that child that is in the most vulnerable state of not yet entering into the "visible" realm, not yet having a voice, ability to run and flee, ability to scream in its pain so as to be heard by the outside world, NONE of this debate matters. NO other human being is as dependent upon the morality of the human race to deliver them.

It is absurd for us to justify the taking of the life of an infant for any reason whether it is 3 months prior to exiting the womb or ten minutes after the exiting of the womb. There should be no differentiation.

Roe vs Wade was the product of a long-term political campaign long ago. I believe having such a law is an affront to our character as a society BUT I do not believe it is necessary to remove it from the law in order to restore the core of our moral character. This could be done by our society simply acknowledging the abhorrence of the taking of life and functioning upon that premise.

Is it a "law" that nobody can use the "N" word in reference to those of color? I don't believe so. Yet it is deemed as so repulsive and unacceptable by our society that you NEVER hear it spoken by white people. The "F" word has even become more acceptable and used more readily than the "N" word! These moral standards are not established by legislative measures. They're certainly not established by God. They are established by the level of moral character and definition set by the socio/political establishment;i.e., "the world".

The same applies to the killing of the "yet-to-be-delivered", infants. If our society began to position "life" above "convenience", there would be a shift in attitude in the mindset of physicians, and of course, politicians. If we began to see more visible images published of the consequences of abortion procedures upon those infants whose lives are so brutally taken it would have the same impact of seeing soldiers mutilated on the battlefield. There would be an awakening, an outcry, a demand that it stop.

Even though I'm not personally a supporter of abortions, I just can't compare saving the lives of a group of boys trapped in a cave to women choosing to terminate their pregnancy. Many don't consider a fetus a live person especially doing very early stages of the pregnancy. Many states prohibit late-term abortions with the exception of protecting the life of the woman or genetic abnormalities although I don't know all the abortion laws in every state. There is other things to consider like rape and incest which could also include rape and the age of the female when pregnant. I remember reading on the internet where a nine year old girl was raped in some country in South America and got an abortion which angered many in the community who were pro-life despite the fact that had she continued her pregnancy it would have killed her. I do believe adoptions is he best option even when it involves rape but I don't think anyone can harshly judge a girl or woman in such dire situations especially if the rape involved a blood relative. Equating abortions with the deaths of young boys in cave doesn't help or solve the circumstances either. I don't believe the Roe vs. Wade will be overturned but I agree with putting restrictions on abortion laws and finding other ways to help reduce abortions. God Bless.

I have a question. Why are Christians obsessed over abortion? And I mean obsessed? Really obsessed.

Sin exists. Abortion is sin. So is a myriad of other transgressions with dire consequences. Nobody feels that obsessed over lying, or a haughty eye, and yet these sins are abhorred by God. You surely don't March around opposing these sins, and yet the church is full of people with these sins being blatantly overlooked everyday.

Of course God's grace and mercy covers these sins and it is gladly accepted and there is certainly not the same kind of grace and mercy towards those who support and practice abortion. Judgement from Christians reigns heavily down on those who abort.

Again the church has chosen to judge some sins harsher than others and some overlooked more than others.

There is a giant hypocrisy happening here.

My biggest beef is why do Christians impose the same measure of understanding and light towards sin that can only come after one has been given the ability to see sin for what it is after transformation that only comes from the Indwelling of Christ?

Those outside of Christ remain in darkness and yet you condem them as if they have been transformed by the light of Christ to see the errors of their ways. Don't you think that is presumptuous? Unfair? Unrighteousness?

If a woman does not have the Indwelling of Christ's light to expose sin and bring light to lies and confusion how can you condem her?

People sin every moment of every day. Christians sin and turn their hearts hard to sin even though they know what is righteous and yet those same people are willing to condemn the lost of this world, those without the light and hope of Christ and condemn them for being lost in sin.

The world without God sins. They do what they do because they don't have Christ. A woman without Christ cannot see or value the sanctity of life the way Christians do because the devil has decieved and confused her with a lifetime of lies.

Why do Christians obsess over this particular sin so much? There are child killers, abusers, sexual deviants roaming in the midst of the pews killing the life and spirit of children and babies and yet these sins are easily overlooked. The consequences of people who do these atrocities get restoration for the offender with more mercy than any unsaved lost woman who aborts. She is condemned relentlessly. He is restored back to the fold.

Why is it so easy for Christians to obsess over the sins of the lost and unsaved and yet turn a blind eye to the sin in the pews....ones in which get a direct ticket to hell? One's in which can destroy the victim's mind and spiritual state? So much so they run from God?

Oh and yelling in a march on parliament hill or harassing women at a clinic or planned parenthood isn't exactly what Christ had in mind when he said makes disciples....that response isn't going to shine the light of Christ on their hearts.

Abortion is worldwide, and has been practiced from the beginning of time in every nation or creed. I doubt, God's wrath on America hinges on America's abortion problem as much as you all believe.

i find it ironic so much thought and debate goes into this one sin and barely a nod to other sin that is destroying people's lives, in the church. The church isn't as all righteous as you think. And it needs to fix itself before it has the capacity to fix an abortion problem outside it's walls.

" Many don't consider a fetus a live person especially doing very early stages of the pregnancy."

This is so true. There is no way that abortion could be accepted if it was acknowledged that this is a baby person. Still, the truth is there and is becoming more and more difficult to deny, to the point that even Hillary acknowledged this as being "a person" BUT she said it is NOT a "citizen" so does not have the "right" to life until he/she is delivered. At least she is being more transparent as to the rationale of pro-abortionists.

Consider: after a baby is delivered, if the mother regretted going through the delivery and said she was unable to care for it/could not stand looking at it because it had been conceived due to a violent rape attack or incest/the baby was extremely handicapped or limited/or gave any other basis for killing the baby, it would be considered murder. But 10 minutes earlier (in some cases law might disallow unless two months earlier) it would be okay to kill the baby and a physician bound by his oath to preserve life would be willing to be a co-conspirator in the act.

During the times that come when the 'strongmen' leadership of nations is on the ascendant, it is then that we see the children begin to suffer most . . . intentionally, in ways that might have been prevented, but now are sought out by those in power

"Testimony of Jana Koh, the Croatian Red Cross secretary that time:

" . . . The barracks were connected by the corridors guarded by the Ustashas. Not far from the ambulance, from another barracks, the sad cries of the children were heard. There was set, on the bare floor, four hundred children: newborns, children from a few weeks or months, up to ten years of age. How many children came, and where they were dispatched, could no longer be found out. The children in the childrens barracks cried inexorably and were calling their mothers, who were only a few steps away from the children, but the fascist criminals did not let mothers to approach their children. . . . "

"For he comes, the human child,To the waters and the wildWith a faery, hand in hand,from a world more full of weeping than youcan understand." (W.B. Yeats, 'The Stolen Child')

We live in a nation that is among the wealthiest in the world, yet we do not welcome new life AS a nation. Lately, we have witnessed another phase of torment directed towards children in our land. It is in this atmosphere of pain and discouragement that we find a chorus of people whose voices ring hollow when they speak out for 'life', and will as a nation offer no hand of welcome to a new mother who must earn and work unending to survive.If we wonder 'why'? abortion, let us unflinchingly examine our own ways of unkindness first, and then, we will have our answer, collectively, as a people.

Your link of ‘horror’ brought memories of the 1947 Nuremberg Trials in Germany. We saw the end of a man on trial who was facing death for his part in a concentration camp. We could hear in English his lawyer saying he was only following orders. The plea did not change his death sentence.

" KINDNESS . . . . . will not be a value forthcoming only in response to sadness, but an ever-present quality which will anticipate needs, construct wholesome situations, and initiate acts of benevolence for needs undetected by others"

Among Jewish people, it is said that the greatest of God's attributes is His 'loving-kindness' and this phrase in Hebrew in said 'Chesed'...... the word does not translate easily.

This kind of 'caring' does offer some answer to the most difficult of situations in that it ANTICIPATES needs, and provides accordingly in wholesome ways. This kind of 'caring' will also express itself in acts of kindness to those whose needs may not be known to others. .

a simple act of 'kindness-like-that-of-our-God' can impact a person's life greatly; as in those times when we are silent and sit with someone who needs to talk, and we 'listen' with our whole hearts as they bring out from within the pain that has no voice

Is the 'Chesed' kindness a response to 'abortion'? I think it may be one answer, but its power is not accessible if we harbor any contempt within ourselves for those people who are weary and troubled and without a Shepherd.

You believe Trump is anti-abortion?? Are you sure he is anti-abortion or maybe he has been misspeaking about his position on this issue the last few years--sarcasm intended. IMO there has never been a serial liar President such as the one we have now. When are "christians" going to call this man out for the sin of lying. The Bible surely condemns it.

Hi Tom Parker,Thank you for writing this: "When are "christians" going to call this man out for the sin of lying."

In the light of the events of this last several days and months, some lines have been crossed from which there may be no returning and I don't know where Christians who support Trump stand.

Is possible these people are still sorting this out concerning recent events. (?)

I have read that Putin and Russia are being seen in a positive light by the Christian far right, but I thought this referred to extremists who are looking forward to the rise of a dominionist government (Christian Nation) in our country. (?)

I thought your question was appropriate as so MUCH has changed in just the past few days that a lot of Americans and Christians wonder where the 'conservative' Christian world's allegiance lies. Is it too soon to know this? I think something integral to the witness of the Church may be at risk and I wonder if lines have been crossed and new lines drawn in what is 'acceptable' to conservative Christian people these days. (?)

I wonder do the dear Ministers that preached that it is a sin to lie before the current president, care that Trump is a serial liar and most ministers and "christians" do not call him out for this. Has the meaning of the word lying changed since the current president took office a year and a half ago. Sure seems that way to me.

Hello Tom,I respect the Christian service of ministers who are not of my Church, but I always hope that those ministers are faithful to their witness of Our Lord above all things, so I understand your concern, yes.

If 'T' wants to lie to people, he will; but since he does it OPENLY as an 'in your face' thing, and expects that his followers will buy what he says, I have to think that his followers are setting aside their discernment to do this. And this is where I have a problem.I guess it all comes down to PRIORITIES and for political purposes, 'T' serves certain interests dear to the hearts of his followers so that even if he is a 'mess', he is still the only way they can foresee getting what they want. I DO have problems when an evangelical person tries to silence those who see through 'T' and speak up...... because these people don't respect that every person should live by their own conscience, and most certainly those who DON'T follow 'T' feel that they MUST speak and not remain silent as they see what is happening around them.

But in the end, will the evangelical support of 'T' injure their witness? What is it that they are supporting? Certainly it's not his personal faults, no. And what are they willing to trade in order to get what they hope he can deliver? What is their integration of their thoughts and actions with their faith (this may not be a fair question to ask)?

I guess it's too soon for clear answers, Tom. What strange times we are living in. Thank you for speaking out. And I am grateful to Wade for allowing people to speak out also.

In my Church, we have this transcendent prayer: 'All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all and all shall be well' so having some hope for better days is in my DNA and I will cannot live without hope.

Tom, you bring up good points regarding the carnal aspects of our President. There had NEVER been a President in our era that you could consider to be one worthy of being a member of the clergy. In some elections, it may seem that our choices are between the anti-Christ and Satan himself.

I believe you misrepresent a lot of Christians who voted for President Trump in portraying them as holding him up as being some sort of saint or ultra-Godly man. In reality, many, maybe most, Christians voted for him because they considered him to be the best choice given the alternative. The morality, integrity, honesty, position on the value of the life of the "yet-to-be-delivered" infants was totally known and recorded by the alternative candidate. The type of Supreme Court Justice replacements and how they would legislate decisions had the alternate candidate been chosen was a given. All of these knowns were the motivating factors behind the decision of most voters including the Christians.

If you and Christiane could have been at peace in supporting the alternate candidate, that is your decision and certainly reflective of your support for and opposition to the issues. So don't beat up on Christians who stay involved due to their civic-mindedness, seek to make the best choice given the options, and even pray as to what God would have them do in a situation where it is apparent that no candidate running is Jesus Christ or even John the Baptist.

I won’t argue with you about Trump being a liar or not, but how much did you complain about Obama’s lie of the year? “You can keep your health plan.”

Or

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obamas-50-lies/

Obama’s words convict him of being a Muslim.1.“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” (Christians don’t have a future?) 2. “America is not – and will never be – at war with Islam.”3. “The sweetest sound is the Muslim call to prayer.”4. “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism.” (He can’t say “Islamic Terrorism.) 5. “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith.” (Would he try to convert a Muslim?)6. “I have known Islam on three continents.” (Bragging or complaining?)7. “I know civilization’s debt to Islam.”8. “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” (Thieves’ hands are cut off.) 9. “Islam has always been part of America.” (In his dreams!)11. “My responsibility as President is to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam.” (Spoken like a true Muslim.)12. “The Holy Koran tells us...” (What Christian believes or states the Koran is “Holy”?)https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.religion/gIAuQ96Huts“As the Holy Koran tells us, be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” (President Obama in Cairo)

no one could have known the future when they voted in 2016, so 'blame' is not a word I would use . . .

but now we know, and I think it is important how Christian people respond to incidents of the inhumane abuse of innocent children who cry for their mothers still;and I think it is important how Americans respond to attacks on our country and on our allies from our enemies.

As Americans, we need to be vigilant now more than ever as we are under attack by a foreign enemy. If nothing more, we need to be vigilant for the honor of those who have sacrificed everything for the preservation of our freedoms. We owe our honored dead a debt now and we cannot turn away and let something unspeakable happen to our country because we knew and did nothing.

Just remember this: as Trump works hard now to bring NATO down, he is attempting to accomplish the goal that the Russian masters want done the most. Has Trump done ANYTHING to respond to the cyber attack on our country that is now underway? No. No he has not.

As for Christians responding, it is a matter of conscience as to how and when, but do we really have the option of 'looking away' from how our 'strong leader' has wounded little ones so cruelly? In THIS COUNTRY, we acknowledge that there is the serious intentional bully of little children is not someone to whom we owe any 'loyalty', no.

"“As much as the Christian would like to remain distant from political struggle, nonetheless, even here the commandment of love urges the Christian to stand up for his neighbor.”(Dietrich Bonhoeffer)

So it isn't okay for Hillary to be corrupt, and for Obama to do whatever he did, but it is okay for Trump to be swishing in the dirty water with Putin......?

I have watched a documentary on Putin from his early childhood to his stint with the KGB, and then his slithering rise to president. Not to mention all the people he takes out, and somehow people can give Trump a pass?

I hope that the conservative Christians remove their support of Trump before the dam breaks:

the Mueller probe runs deep and runs silent, but it is obvious already that the depth and breadth of what is being uncovered is extremely detailed and accurate, and there are many more indictments and trials to come . . . .

I want the SBC not to be involved with Trump/Republican brand when the Mueller Report does come out. I hope for this, because SO much is coming out OPENLY now in front of the nation that even those who only listen to Limbaugh and who only watch FOX news can see and hear for themselves how Trump is being played by Putin.

I hope for common sense to prevail. And I do realize that 'Trump' stood for something where the political 'solution' to abortion might be realized, so good people voted for him. I do know this. But now comes the dominionists to welcome Putin and I hope the SBC is not going to become a part of this movement . . . . MORE trouble!

Christiane:"I hope that the conservative Christians remove their support of Trump before the dam breaks:"

Remove support for Trump...and re-direct it to whom?

One can stick their head in the sand and be totally oblivious to the unraveling of the basic structure of the United States that was occurring in the 8 years prior to the last election if they choose to do so.

They can ignore the accelerated progression into socialism principles (and the stated intent of the losing candidate to continue that). They can deny the continued infiltration of our Appellate Judicial system that would have been inevitable had the losing candidate won, with judges who would legislate law according to social whims rather than adhere to a more strict mandate by The Constitution.

They can insist on being blind and even deny the continued support and expansion of policies and support to accommodate the slaughter of the "yet-to-be-delivered" infants that their political choice would facilitate. They can even be so indifferent as to accept policies for encouraging the rampant invasion of our nation by having borders totally open and unprotected and then accommodating the invaders by providing those social support provisions normally expected to be used for citizens of the nation. They can ignore and even celebrate when their money, and mine, is used to support the destructive lifestyles that people are living who refuse to work and remain enslaved to a socialist government that renders their life meaningless and without the hope of ever acquiring a sense of self-esteem and that comes with being independently self-supportive.

There is no need to argue about such things. You choose your way, I'll choose mine. I will seek what is true and apparent to me and I will assess your decisions as being based upon denial and foolishness and you can assess mine as being mean and cruel to children and supportive of some lying, treasonist monster. You can assess that I am blind to the system I adhere to and I will assess you as being the same. I am sure that both assessments will be overstated and to remain civil we will simply have to look for other admirable aspects of one another's lives.

Hello Mr. Kuter,I don't want to judge you, I want to spare your Christian witness from the toxicity of embracing evil that good may come from it :)

It's hard to explain. I don't want good people tainted by something they didn't see coming but are still hopeful will deliver the country from Roe v. Wade through the appointment of judges. Does that make sense?

Well, maybe some did see this coming in part, but certainly not the full extent of it, no way. But now you can see more and there is much more to come and the final report is likely to reveal much, much worse. So, I mean well, at least. The signs were there in the beginning sure, but not to the extent now seen openly.

Nothing 'human' is perfect, no. We are all flawed but we still have consciences and to ignore them and pledge 'loyalty' to a person whose actions violate our consciences seems self-destructive to me. And to the country whose heart is not in hurting those children.

One thing about Roe-v-Wade: it places the onus on the individual's moral conscience to decide and that is something that I can understand as a Catholic, but R v. W's removal will place the 'responsibility' on the government to punish 'law-breaking' . . . I think we know that removing R v. W will not 'prevent' abortions, no. The 'decision' is still going to be a personal one, and if there is no hope and no help, it will not be a good decision, just acted out in more extreme desperation in a society where many women already feel persecuted through cultural misogyny and economic injustice.

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the opportunity to learn from your perspective.

Christiane said: "I don't want to judge you, I want to spare your Christian witness from the toxicity of embracing evil that good may come from it :)"

My, my, how can I go wrong with such a fine sister watching over me?

I know your intent is genuine and compassionate and well-meaning. Thank you for all that. I am sure that we have the same interest in protecting each other from evil and destructive powers, but can you not see a tad bit of arrogance in what you are saying to me?

We definitely have a difference in opinion and different assessments of the situation and the individuals involved. I could easily make the same statement that you made, saying, "Christiane! Don't do it! You are opposing someone that is reversing the destructive, toxic, psyche of the evilest and most corrupt politicians in US history!" But I won't say that.

Do you realize that I genuinely seek God's voice and direction on commitments I make? Hopefully, you do as well; at least I presume that you do and that you feel led by God's Holy Spirit to make the decisions you make and take the positions that you take, as I do. For me to overstep my piety and say that "You are not listening to the Holy Spirit as I am! You need to think like me or you are evil!" would not be acceptable or appropriate.

So let us not go overboard on our self-assessment. That is what "fundamentalists" do, and we don't care for that, do we?

it IS 'socialist' a bit, sure, but you might remember that the most basic 'social' unit is, after all, 'the family'

I think the references are excellent resources also. Take a look if you missed it.

We are not on the same page as far as where we get our information or as far as our conclusions about the implications of that information;but I still appreciate the opportunity of learning about your point of view.

I believe the article makes some very good points. It is a matter or priorities, isn't it. Some people are definitely controlled by their work schedule and demands of the institution/employer. Also, to many, it is a matter of choice and recognizing what is necessary and what is not. I am sure that many people would lose their jobs if they said they were only going to work 40 hours a week and they were going to take time off each year to invest with their families. Some people self-impose the pressure of working so much that they deny the basic need for spending time with their family. This article does portray the need to prioritize family and the rewards that come with recognizing that.

Good to mention and promote with both employers and employees and definitely a principle which should be preached more frequently than it is.

"Distributism", as proposed by G.K. Chesterton differs from both Socialism and Capitalism. The best way of explaining it is that Socialism is based on communal rights and Capitalism is based on individual rights, but Distributism is based on family rights, and the idea that a society and an economy should be to protect, nurture, and serve that primary institution consisting of a father, a mother, and children."

maybe it's time to take a look at 'distributism' as a possible model that can be positively put to use to help prevent abortions . . . key problem: MONEY is a part of this model and people are not comfortable putting 'their' money towards 'the common good' in the form of support of the primary institution of our nation: the family.

I'm gonna give you a different take on your debate. Without giving too much information I was raped continuously as a very young child until I was 18. During that time 2 pregnancies occurred . One when I was a girl of twelve. I barely knew what was happening to my body.

The other at age 17. Both babies died at different points of gestation. Not miscarried but born alive. Then passed away.

While you are all nattering about this issue. I see it completely differently.

While both my babies were conceived from horrific situations beyond my control, because of others sin against me, my babies both rest in the arms of Jesus. Safe from further harm. Save nestling in the most loving arms possible. Far better than the world they were born into.

It is by God's merciful unchanging love he accepted them into his arms despite the evil that perpetuated their conception.

Every single aborted , stillborn, miscarried baby is in the arms of Jesus. How is that a bad thing? While you all fight, mincing words, ideologies, the Lord has already taken those ones unto himself . Little beings spiritually with the Father.

Every woman who has had a baby ripped from her womb via any method, be it early miscarriage or abortion , stillbirth , gets forgiveness, solace and comfort for a grieving heart knowing where their baby rests. And even if those women who don't recognize it or shove it down, somewhere in their being they hope that is where they end up.

So while you all,

argue, debate and misunderstand, the Father has already taken care of the issue. The most important one at hand.

It makes the whole point moot.

He has taken care of the sin already. The woman who chooses to abort also has mercy and grace waiting for herself if she so chooses to hear and believe. Why? because God is like that.

Mans way condemns, mans way does not understand. Mans way confuses, fights, and thinks they know what is right.

My little babies, are safe and I am grateful with every breath of my being they are with him. They were born into hellish circumstances and God in his mercy took them both.

There are millions of infants from the beginning of time with the Father celebrating right now, not in an earthly body but a spiritual body worshipping God for all eternity. Why are you so caught up ?

While you sit in condemnation of sin, it's gonna bounce back at you...at some point. Drop the swords of judgement and condemnation.

The father already has. That is why he went to the cross. His love covers a multitude of sin, including abortion. Including the foul deaths of my two preterm babies, born with tiny cries. Born to a child of 12 and 17 against her will. I have tasted that mercy and grace and ultimate unfathomable love for my babies and myself. And each aborted baby receives the same love.

I can't help but envision the scribes and Pharisees hashing things out to the letter, and there is Jesus standing there in the flesh, while they are too busy debating to notice who he is or his commission .

1 cor15:55-57H death, where is your victory? Where is your sting? for sin the sting that causes death will all be gone;and the law, which reveals our sins will no longer be our judge, 57 How we thank God for all of this! It is he who makes us victorious through Jesus Christ our Lord!

These babies have the victory there is no sting of death.

Petra GraveRobberThere's a step that we all take aloneAn appointment we have with the great unknownLike a vapor this life is just waiting to passLike the flowers that fade, like the withering grassBut life seems so long and death so completeAnd the grave an impossible potion to cheatBut there's One who has been there and still lives to tellThere is One who has been through both Heaven and hellAnd the grave will come up empty-handed the dayJesus will come and steal us away

(Chorus)Where is the sting, tell me where is the biteWhen the grave robber comes like a thief in the nightWhere is the victory, where is the prizeWhen the grave robber comesAnd death finally dies

Many still mourn and many still weepFor those that they love who have fallen asleepBut we have this hope though our hearts may still acheJust one shout from above and they all will awakeAnd in the reunion of joy we will seeDeath will be swallowed in sweet victory

When the last enemy is done from the dust will come a songThose asleep will be awakened - not a one will be forsakenHe shall wipe away our tears - He will steal away our fearsThere will be no sad tomorrow - there will be no pain and sorrow

Romycat; I don't believe we see the issue differently. You indeed have had horrific experiences involving these things first hand and that is so tragic. All that you say about God's grace and compassion for those little ones, you, and all of those mothers who are victimized by the pain of such experiences is without question.

But when we describe those who campaign for the right of children to live as being like the scribes and Pharisees who had no compassion or feelings and were heartless in their application of the Law, I must take exception. I see no similarity and wonder what might bring you to that conclusion. If I fight for the right of children to live, how does that reflect my being indifferent to the mothers' plight or my not being compassionate for them?

I hope and pray that my expressing this does not in any way come across as not being sympathetic to the misery you have gone through. That would simply not be the case.

Campaigning the right to live? Or trying to impose non Christians to submit to a conscience they don't have? Or campaigning for a particular party On one platform despite all the other horrific/unrighteous/sinful policies they might pass?

In regards to the Sadducees and Pharisees missing the whole point of Jesus and the relationship to the abortion argument ?

Maybe God's atonement for aborted babies is enough? Maybe if Christians were not so busy trying to argue and oppose a law they might see Jesus has made a better way for those babies? Why is it the Christian's are so happy their miscarried, stillborn or even aborted babies are with Jesus, and yet when it comes to an unsaved woman's baby that isn't even mentioned? Just the killing of a life and the judgement against the woman?

You cannot not force an unregenerate heart to change. As long as people's hearts are unregenerate they will never (cannot) keep God's law. It's not a reflection on God's law. But on the inherent wickedness of mans heart. You cannot impose Christian views on abortion through legislation . It is an act of futility because laws do not change the wickedness of mans heart. (Or a woman who is seeking abortions). Those who want an abortion are going to find an abortion despite the law.

I likened the Pharisees to Christians because while everyone is so busy trying to campaign or enforce law on others and argue on blogs such as this on , there is a huge log in the eyes of the church, and individuals .

Christians are so busy pointing fingers at women who abort in guise of defending the unborn, they miss their own hypocrisy. They are so busy campaigning they cannot see their own judgement on others, they cannot see the hatred in their own heart towards the women who abort or the pride. It's there. It's just repressed so deep in self righteousness because the cause looks so righteous.

I mean it is easy to go to a march or drop your vote in a ballot Box and say you campaign for the unborn, as a means to satisfy your own self righteous heart. But it is another thing to actually go and physically lay down your life for a mother who has 3 kids, is overwhelmed by poverty, has or hasn't sought out another abortion to alleviate the stress. Or not allow legislation to provide birth control.

I am a Christian . I would not seek out an abortion to solve a "problem" pregnancy.( And if I did), I would seek forgiveness and undoubtably live with the consequences of what I had sown .And the grace and mercy of the Lord would help me bear up the consequences of that sin for the rest of my days. Just as any other sin.

But for me to impose my views on others expecting an unregenerate heart to suddenly be regenerate about abortion isn't even fair. They can't . I cannot stand here and condemn those who abort as if I have no hidden sin. I feel extremely sad for those who abort. I feel compassion for those women who feel they need to do it. And especially for those so blinded by sin and destruction they know not what they do. My mandate is to forgive them, as my trespasses are forgiven.

A Christians job is to make disciples, feed, clothe, drink, and take care of the widows and orphans. Set the captives free, give sight to the blind, set the oppressed free , and preach GOOD NEWS To the poor in the name of Jesus Christ.

In my Bible I don't see Jesus leading his disciples to change Roman law. They were to abide by the laws and subject themselves to it.

You will never be able to regenerate an unregenerate nation by imposing laws on her. You can only police it. But you can extend the genuine love of Christ to sinners by doing as he commanded. Love your neighbor as yourself. That love is not one we can conjure up ourselves , it is a total gift, a transformation of the Holy Spirit within us to give.

What fate awaits a child born into an unwanted, poverty, abusive circumstance?

I know the struggle personally. I was born premature at 2.5 lbs. I should have died. God sustained me.At 2 I was adopted into a presumably loving family.Rape & torment was my life.At 5 I wanted to kill myself.Life has been nothing more than survival.

First being tormented by evil so invasive, and then trying to find my way out of it. I am 51 and it has been a lifelong road to healing.And it wont be complete until I meet

Most Christians dont want to deal with people like me. Most Christians impose rules on what healing looks like, or worse judgement. Because you havent prayed enough, haven't enough faith etc. The process is taking too long. Arent you over it now? Just forgive.Then you are tossed aside in judgement if you dont comply.

My point is if you are going to defend that right to life, you better be well prepared to lay down your life, bind up those wounds, use your resources wether it be money, time, skills, schooling, and love, to fix the mess the "right to live" becomes.

It is a long haul.I tapped out my church resources,those who were willing to help got exhausted , frustrated, fed up. They were not educated with what was being dealt with. I had to find professional help.Right now, I see abortions as an act of mercy, because the church in America is too busy building buildings,taking youth groups to 3rd world missioncations.the church is too concerned and distracted with theatrical,concert displays of worship. Too busy supporting running, building and maintaining Christian schools and universities. Too busy collecting and making money to spend on itself.

The church is so introspective, politisized, inclusive, irrelevant to the needs of the destitute.

Or pastors lining their pockets so heavyily with money they cant even move their feet in the direction of Jesus foot steps.There are a few christians putting the shoulder to the wheel, There are a few small insignificant churches who see the utter poverty of the church who weep because of it, and stand in the gap. There is a remnant scattered about the globe.

But because there are few the job isnt getting done. MATT 9:37

Then he said to his disciples," The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few"

Making disciples, feeding the poor in spirit, setting the captive free, giving sight to the blind is not a one time deal. It takes a long time to bind up wounds, especially the kind that alter your brain synapsis.Especially the shattered ones like me.Cycles of abuse take a long time to unravel and correct.

As much as I disagree with abortion at this point, with the church unwilling , and too politically caught up, and oh so full of sin, I see abortion as a mercy because the church isnt doing its job.

I have seen the underbelly of the church, I have been abused and raped by a pastor and deacons, thanks to my mother for the offering......

But God is faithful. The church is not. GOD WILL NEVER LEAVE ME OR FORSAKE ME. but the church will.

Gods love is unconditional. But the church's love is conditional.

Is it fair to say I am angry at the circumstance of the church? Yes.

But I am as equally mournful, at the state of the church because I have experienced its failings more than it righteousness.

Romycat Black; Thank you for sharing your views and being so transparent. If your experience with professing Christians in general has led you to conclude that "Most Christians don't want to deal with people like me.", that is the saddest thing of all. Your misery and being victimized when you were so vulnerable and helpless breaks God's heart more than anything. You would be the one that Jesus would moan for in compassion and empathy. We "Christians" are to be indwelled with the living Spirit of Jesus Christ and that is to be reflected as we function in this world and interact with all people.

At the same time, I am sure that you personally know and have experienced the compassion, love and concern of some followers of Jesus who have sought to minister to your pain and render what comfort and companionship they could. Certainly not all, but some. I sure pray that you do have such brothers and sisters in Christ that you actively relate to and you serve with them to minister to others.

Your comments at least serve to make me more aware of the extraordinarily sensitive and intimate nature of the entire abortion issue. I will continue to keep the lives of those infants as my priority given that I feel convicted by God to do so and not to do so would mean to me that I will be judged by God for my complacency. At the same time, me or anyone else who functions with indifference or lack of love and compassion toward those who, like yourself, have gone through so much, will certainly likewise be reckoned with by God.

Thank you for your genuine concern and empathy. There have been a handful through out the years who have helped in any way they could. Some for the sheer sensation of being involved with such diabolical circumstances. But the majority give up because the time frame for healing doesn't happen at a pace they feel appropriate.

But I have run across some individuals online who are willing to count the cost. And God uses them.

I worked hard and fought my way through with God clearly revealing himself to me.But my chief concern at this point is what I see happening in the mee too movement in the church. It does not ease my mind to see the Andy Savages, or Chris Conlee's of the church minimizing sin. Nor the Paige Pattersons. In fact , it makes me glad I never outed my own pastor, it would have been futile. The women coming forward have the strength of The Lord behind them. I could never do what they are doing.RB Kuter if see your response and it heartens me. Abortion, for whatever the reason is a loss to the woman and she will walk with that decision the rest of her life. We never know the pain people carry. We never know what leads a woman to that decision. It is a sin of deep shame. Most people repress it or never speak of it.My passion is that the church starts to recognize sin in it!s midst. I can spot a faker pretty easily. It's a defence mechanism I learned very early on for self preservation. Call it discernment or whatever. The church needs to wake up, get its priorities straight ,deal with sin in its pews before it starts Bugging the unsaved calling out their sin.

Non Christians can see this plain as day. They can call the church on its hypocrisy accurately . Why would anyone want their sin pointed out by a bunch of self righteous hypocrites? I wouldn't. The Lord is coming back and I doubt the church is ready. She needs to be spotless for her bridegroom. Her focus is on SELF ,MONEY and NUMBERS. A very selfish church indeed.

When you remove yourself outside of church circles and the sanctimonious cushion surrounding her it's not hard to see and know.

No, thank you for sharing. God uses your testimony and perspective, which does portray an amazingly healthy, though scarred heart, to inspire and teach a lot of people, myself for certain. I am glad that this dialogue continued and know there are other readers that are and have benefited as well.

When my wife read your comment I thought she was going to cry. I met a little girl about 3 years old that may have walked in your shoes. This is the story where I wish I had reported a man to the police but all I did was run.

I was 22 and needed a car. An ad in a newspaper was a wonderful buy…cash only. I hitched hiked to the location. The man said the car was at a different place and to go with him and I could see it. His car had something in the front seat so I sat in the back with the girl. I was disgusted with his talking about sex with Blacks. “The color don’t rub off.”

He said he had to stop for something. The girl wanted to sit in my lap which was OK with me until she tried to unzip my britches. She stood up and pulled her dress up. She didn’t have panties. That’s when I ran.

Looking back, I believe the man was watching and thought I would rape the girl. He probably had a gun and would demand my money. I believe this man fits: “It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a millstone hung around your neck than to cause one of these little ones to fall into sin.”

I’m not saying the girl was sinning, but with this background her future would fit the Scripture.

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

The little girl was either coerced , forced, or simply knew from experience that is what men wanted.I would have run too!

Hindsight is 20/20 and hopefully someone was able to reach her and pull her out of her circumstances.

Wade , thank you for your comment. I would like to add that in my experience and in knowing and observing others, healing is tricky business.

The mind and body are so cleverly connected. The brain itself is an amazing scientific wonder that just magnifies the glory of God!

Every new understanding that comes forth on how trauma affects the brain is both depressing and wonderful in the fact that God created our minds so brilliantly.

There are principles that undoubtably help people recover from trauma. Forgiveness being one. But it must not be forced or provoked on a person. With enough healing it will inevitably happen of free will in a frame of mind that can only further healing.In my experience, God does not have a formula for healing. Depending on the circumstances, the depth of trauma, the self will of the person, And people surrounding the person whether they are a positve or a negative influence can alter, hinder or help.Nothing is neat and tidy.But I do know God creates, prevents, and does within his power things to help even if we cannot see it.But the biggest thing God uses are people.ordinary people. Anyone who will exhibit a willingness to help. Even non Christians.I had success in unexpected ways with non Christians in areas where christians had too many hang ups and boxes to help.

Wade as you think and explore this area, remember God has given us science as a key to the mind and healing. Many Christian's oppose science when it comes to the mind. Im not talking hokey pokey stuff, i am speaking in the scientific way the neurons , and synapsis changes in response to trauma and emotional pain.Kids who are traumatized young will react a certain way because of the way the brain was wired in the formative years. Because God invented the brain he can heal the damage if he so chooses. In some areas I have experienced healing and in other areas it remains the same. But the thing I recomend most?Listen, dont fix.If someone cries in your office for weeks, months, years. Let them. Listen to them. Over and over.If they express anger let them. All emotions are given by God.if they have been made manifest by evil, oppression, abuse they must be vented. For it is in our design by God.

WadeThere is a book out called The body keeps Score. By Bessel van der Kolk, M.D.

My friend who also suffered as myself did her masters on healing from trauma, and recommended this book to me last year.

The thing with this, is I have lived the pages of this book my whole life. Learning and finding a way to healing and help. Often with blind eyes moving forwzrd into the unknown. It was very terrifying.

When I say the church throws away or doesnt know what to do with my level of trauma they really dont. They are ill equipped. They dont have enough tools or the right tools. Some have very eager and willing hearts. Some have formulas or prayers, even so called " inner healing" or " generational healing" which having been tried and used on me, I dont deem those methods as exactly real, or successful. I think they lead to false positives.

But what I do find interesting in scripture, is weeping, mourning, and lamenting. And expressing anger but not turning it into sin.

Our tears change their chemistry when we cry. They bring out the toxins. There is wisdom in grief and the expression of it.

I spent years crying everytime I entered church or homegroup. I got in with people who accepted my tears, and they flowed. And because that emotion was released even though I didnt know why I had them so fiercly and never ending, it paved the way to process reliving the hell that was coming my way when the dam of my past broke in all its force. I was able to weave my way to safety and out of the reach of an abusive family. I was able to keep safe when I took my accounts of abuse to the police and my abusers threatened me daily.

I was able to logically process my past for the most part in therapy. And the biggest thing about therapy? I paid someone thousands of dollars to listen to me. As frustrating as it was. I thought he was supposed to lead and direct but mostly sat mute.

And when I look back, that is what was needed. A kind, sympathetic ear. One who constantly said" Im sorry that happened to you" im sorry they did that, im sorry men were so evil, im sorry you were so little and defenseless"

I wanted him to say more , and most times he was near tears, but I needed to see his emotions, his fears and his disgust towards what happened. It validated everything. His compassion and empathy was not lost on me.

It was weird to pour out vile memories to him, it was gross for us both. But it needed to be done.

When I say Christians dont want you or to deal with you, this is what they dont want. They dont want to know those things. But the church needs to mourn with those that mourn. Weep with those that weep. And keep weeping until ther is no more weeping and no more tears. That is the compassion of Jesus.

Wade, Im going to link you up with a blog from a pastor called Sam Powell. He wrote an excellent blog post on this.

Sam is a pastor who I regard as one in the trenches, not seeking anything but to dilligently serve the Lord. He weeps with those who weeps and comforts those who mourn.

I hope God grips your heart and refines you further as you read this post. In regards to those coming forward in the SBC, and those young ones, the ones abused in their pews are brave enough to come forward. Against the Philistine giants such as Paige Patterson.Pay attention to the comments. I commented as the post tore assunder raw emotion as I read the words. Bunkababy is my name.

Compassion asks us to go where it hurts, to enter into the places of pain, to share in brokenness, fear, confusion, and anguish. Compassion challenges us to cry out with those in misery, to mourn with those who are lonely, to weep with those in tears. Compassion requires us to be weak with the weak, vulnerable with the vulnerable, and powerless with the powerless. Compassion means full immersion in the condition of being human.”

On of my favourite verses is this.

Matt 9:36

When he saw the crowds, He was MOVED WITH COMPASSION FOR THEM, because they were HARASSED and HELPLESS, like a sheep without a shepherd.

Or the Berean Bible says: they were WEARIED AND CAST AWAY.― Henri J.M. Nouwen

I think the little girl knew what men wanted from experience by the man I assumed to be her father.

About 50 years ago at a red-light, the passenger door opened on the car in front of us. A young boy got halfway out before a man yanked him back and hit him. The light changed and he went through and stopped on the other side. I stopped behind him. I should have grabbed his keys, but like an idiot I asked what was going on. (The boy was unconscious.) He took off fast in a big Buick. My small car eventual lost him. (My wife and niece were screaming as I was making corners on two wheels.)

We gave his license to the police. Later, we asked them if they got the guy. I’ll never forget their answer: “We sent a policeman to that location and nothing was going on like what you reported.”

I guess the best thing we can do to be pro-active in the fight to eliminate trafficking, child abuse, and such is to be aware and vigilant in reporting suspicious activities right around us. I'm encouraged to see some public service ads encouraging people to do just that as the mini-drama commercial shows neighbors discussing the suspicious activities going on across the street where young girls are being forced around. I know schools are very sensitive these days to students who come in with suspicious marks on their bodies or who even behave in a manner suggesting they are living under oppressive/abusive situations.

Still, I don't see how you could have done more in those instances in which you shared. You cannot function in the role of police enforcer but you certainly went way beyond what most of us would have done to protect those young victims. I'm sure the police departments are overwhelmed by the constant deluge of reported crimes going on. Look at what Chicago police are faced with! I'm sure that sort of volume of violent crime promotes the sense of helplessness by our law enforcement especially when they do not get the support of people agreeing to press charges or act as witnesses because they don't want to get involved or are simply indifferent; as long as "they" are not the victims! But we have to do what we can.

Wow is good to be back with my ex again, thank you Dr Ekpen for the help, I just want to let you know that is reading this post in case you are having issues with your lover and is leading to divorce and you don’t want the divorce, Dr Ekpen is the answer to your problem. Or you are already divorce and you still want him/her contact Dr Ekpen the spell caster now on (ekpentemple@gmail.com) or whatsapp him on +2347050270218 and you will be clad you did